I got pinged once for a busted call when I worked a friend during a
contest who was not in the contest. He heard me in the contest,
answered my CQ, we chatted for a moment, I logged him and he gave me a
contact S/N 001. I was his only contest contact. I considered him a
unique call contact for me, the contest people said he was a busted
call. They did not indicate what they believed the call should have been.
It wasn't a big deal, just one QSO, but makes me wonder........
73
Bob Henderson wrote:
Igor
I guess one event probably influenced me most in my thinking about penalties
for badly copied calls. I won't name the individual concerned as my
thoughts relate more to principle than personality but:
While S&P in a recent major event, I called a very well known contest
station. Although he was very strong with me and I suspect I was with him,
it took three calls, in between which he called CQ, before I got a response.
When it came, the response was "Worked before". I replied with "Not in log"
and the station responded with "You copied my call wrong". I imediately
knew which contact he was referring to, as I had only logged one other
contact with his entity on that band. So I said, "You didnt correct your
call". He replied, "No, I get multiplier, you get penalty....Hi!".
This incident really showed up a weakness of a scheme which only penalises
the operator who incorrectly logs the call (or logs an incorrect call). It
could be argued that such a scheme might provide incentive for the
unscrupulous to fudge their own call when making exchanges with those who
might constiute serious competition.
Perish the thought, someone would actually do such a thing!
Bob, 5B4AGN, P3F
----- Original Message -----
From: "Igor Sokolov" <ua9cdc@r66.ru>
To: "Bob Henderson" <bob@cytanet.com.cy>; <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 6:17 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Fw: Just when you think
What I can't understand is why rules in some contests only penalise
the receiver for a badly copied call and not the sender. It seems
to me that if an appropriate exchange doesn't take place then
neither should there be a valid qso for either party. If all
contests >supported a scheme in which both stations had to correctly
log calls and other exchange requirements for either to be awarded
points >the emphasis on ID might be improved. (at least in contests)
Bob, 5B4AGN, P3F
_______________________________________________
This is an interesting subject. What Bob said about penalizing both
sides of QSO does make sense. There are two schools of thoughts. One
is the CQWW and WPX where receiving side takes all the penalties. I
was supporting this approach assuming that nowadays senders (well,
most of them) use computers for perfect sending and therefore all the
mistakes are on the receiving side.
Another school of thought is widely used here in Russia for most of
the contests (Russian DX contest excluded). It states that QSO is a
two way road and if something is wrong in one of the logs, then
correct exchange did not take place and both parties should be
penalized. The latter approach, although it sounds true, does not
take into account the fact that the motivation to be awarded points
for QSO could be different with different parties. If I am just
casual participant I do not care much about points an penalties.
Sometimes these participants do not send in log at all and therefore
all contacts with them should not be counted. Russian DX contest
sponsors tried to partly compensate for that by creating "virtual
logs" for such a participants and analyzing the probability of QSO
using sophisticated algorithm.
Anyway in the light of what Bob said, may be the more strict approach
when both stations are responsible for correct exchange in both logs
does make sense.
73, Igor UA9CDC
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
--
__________________________________________________________________________
Alan Zack
Amateur Radio Station K7ACZ
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
Quality Engineer, The Boeing Company, Retired
Aviation Chief Warrant Officer, U.S. Coast Guard, Retired
U.S. Coast Guard, Always Ready, Always There
Every hour, Every day, Around the Clock and Around the World
SEMPER PARATUS
http://www.gocoastguard.com
http://www.uscg.mil/d14/units/asbp/uscgasbp/
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|